Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS5170362 A
Publication typeGrant
Application numberUS 07/641,218
Publication date8 Dec 1992
Filing date15 Jan 1991
Priority date15 Jan 1991
Fee statusLapsed
Publication number07641218, 641218, US 5170362 A, US 5170362A, US-A-5170362, US5170362 A, US5170362A
InventorsHoward L. Greenberg, Ensor Rodriguez
Original AssigneeAtlantic Richfield Company
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Redundant system for interactively evaluating the capabilities of multiple test subjects to perform a task utilizing a computerized test system
US 5170362 A
Abstract
A redundant interactive subject evaluation system composed of multiple, distinct test sites containing multiple test stations, nodes which interconnect several test sites and a single integrating evaluating hub into which flows all site and node data. The system is operable to receive dial-in telecommunications data from any remote test site location including transportation vehicles in transit by air, water, or land. System reliability is high with continued node and test site activity even during overall system outages. The performance evaluation test runs on the test stations at the individual sites interactively evaluating the performance capabilities of multiple subjects by comparing the test subjects' hub data stored as historical performance characteristics with their new test results secured at the test stations. Trained, evaluating personnel not located at the test sites such as Medical Review Officers (MRO's) are located at the nodes and hub to analyze, evaluate and interpret data received from the test subject's results at the remote sites. One embodiment of the system is described in detail.
Images(4)
Previous page
Next page
Claims(14)
What is claimed is:
1. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations, comprising:
a plurality of test sites;
at least one test station at each of said test sites, said test station having at least one interactive computer means for interfacing with said subject;
performance evaluation means at said test station for producing current subject performance data representative of said subject's current performance level, said performance evaluation means including means for presenting a verbal and spatial attention test to said subject on said interactive computer means;
at least one node site;
means for coupling each of said plurality of test sites, to said at least one node site, said at least one node site operable to communicate with each of said test sites, said at least one node site having a node data base of said subject's past performance data and further operable to store said subject's current performance data from said plurality of test sites and to present both said past and current subject's performance data to evaluating personnel located at said at least one node site;
a hub site; and
means for coupling said at least one node site to said hub site, said hub site operable to communicate with said at least one node site and further operable to store said subject's current and past performance data from said at least one node site.
2. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 1 wherein each of said plurality of test sites includes a plurality of test stations.
3. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 1 which further includes a plurality of node sites each of said plurality of node sites having a plurality of different test sites coupled thereto, and means coupling each of said node sites to said hub.
4. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 1 wherein said means for coupling said plurality of test sites to said at least one node site includes modem means and telephone lines.
5. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 1 wherein at last one of said test sites further includes surveillance means for remotely observing said subject during the time said test is being presented to said subject.
6. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 5 which further includes means for coupling said surveillance means to said node site.
7. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 1 wherein at least one of said test sites further includes a consultation area separate from said at least one test station.
8. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 7 wherein said consultation area further includes camera means for providing a record of said subject's condition when said subject is in said consultation room.
9. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 8 wherein said consultation room further includes a test station.
10. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 9 wherein said consultation room further includes a means for testing the breath of said subject.
11. A system for interactively evaluating performance capabilities of a plurality of subjects at different and separated locations as defined in claim 10 wherein said consultation room further includes security alarm means coupled thereto.
12. An interactive method of evaluating performance capabilities of multiple test subjects to perform a task utilizing a computerized test system for comparing each said subject's response to a test to each said subject's previously generated base line, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) verifying the identity of each said test subject after said subject accesses a personal compute, said personal computer having a view screen and keyboard;
(b) determining if each said test subject has been tested within a predetermined period of time;
(c) if step (b) is negative, then accessing said each test subject's previously stored personal performance base line test results from said test subject's data base file, said data base file located physically distant from said personal computer;
(d) testing each said test subject utilizing a predetermined interactive test, said test presented to each said test subject on said personal computer view screen;
(e) recording each said test subject's responses to said test as generated by each said test subject through said personal computer keyboard;
(f) communicating said recorded test results to each said test subject's data base file;
(g) comparing said communicated recorded test results to each said test subject's previously stored personal performance base line test results;
(h) determining if said communicated, recorded test results are different from each said test subject's previously stored test results;
(i) retesting any of said test subjects at least one more time if said communicated, recorded test results are less than that test subject's previously stored base line test results;
(j) conducting an interview said subject if that said subject's retesting test results are less than that said subject's previously stored base line test results; and
(k) discharging that said test subject from the performance of said task upon that said test subject's failure to perform satisfactorily during said interview such that said repeated failure of that said subject to produce communicated recorded test results at least equal to said test subject's previously stored base line test results can be overridden.
13. A method as defined in claim 12 wherein said interview is performed by a Medical Review Officer.
14. A method as defined in claim 13 wherein said interview is performed using an interview video camera.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to a redundant interactive testing system for individuals; and more particularly to the testing of multiple subjects at remote sites by comparison of their immediate test results to a centrally stored, base line generated by the results from previously taken tests thereby ascertaining whether or not the subject is capable of performing a particular task.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The effects of alcohol, drugs (both ethical and illegal), fatigue, stress, emotional disturbance and the like have long been known to degrade both the physical and mental performance of human beings.

Such degradation of performance may, in certain critical tasks, result in substantial loss of life or property. For example, impaired performance of a ship captain may result in improper response to unusual weather conditions leading to the sinking of the ship, total destruction of the vessel, its cargo and possible long term environmental catastrophe.

Impaired functional capabilities of operators of other types of vehicles can also lead to similar results, for example, pilots, bus or truck drivers carrying cargo or passengers. Individuals operating complex or sensitive equipment may likewise make decisions or take actions which could result in the occurrence of loss of property and human life.

Employers have a two-fold problem. First, they must not hire individuals who place themselves and others at risk due to the effects of substance abuse on their work performance. Second, the employer has a moral and legal responsibility to their shareholders and society at large to monitor their current employees for decreased performance.

Many attempts have been directed to intrusive and non-intrusive testing of individuals to ascertain whether or not their bodies contain performance degrading substances. The testing of individuals in this manner has raised many legal, ethical and moral issues and in many instances is inadequate.

Particularly, such testing will not disclose performance degradation due to emotional disturbance, stress, debilitation as a result of age or disease or the like.

Accuracy and legal and employee morale problems with drug testing have discouraged many employers from implementing widespread drug testing programs. Existing drug tests detect not the drug itself, but the by-products called metabolites that are left behind after the drug has been metabolized by the body. Since these by-products linger in the body for weeks, it is entirely possible and even likely that a subject who fails a drug test is totally sober and fit for work.

Most current non-intrusive drug tests require taking a sample of the employee's urine, a bodily function that most people consider intensely private. The problem is compounded by the growing tendency of employers to observe the employee in the act of urination to prevent cheating. It would be most useful to evaluate an employee's performance capabilities without embarrassing invasive testing methods.

NASA developed the first non-intrusive testing system called "Critical Tracking Task" (CTT), in the 1960's for astronauts and test pilots. Because non-intrusive performance testing detects impairment from any source including illness, emotional problems, or staying up all night with a sick child, it is vastly superior to drug testing for detecting those who pose a safety risk in critical fields such as transportation.

Moreover, because CTT looks only at the test subject's fitness for duty and not off-duty conduct, and does not involve any intrusive or embarrassing procedures, CTT eliminates the employee morale backlash and lawsuits caused by random drug tests.

Other attempts have been made to test individuals on a non-intrusive basis or without the necessity of testing breath or urine samples. For example, the U.S. Pat. No. 3,901,215 to Erwin Roy John entitled, "Method of Testing the Senses and Cognition of Subjects," discloses a system which produces an electroencephalograph on a subject in response to predetermined stimuli where response is compared to the subject's evoked response at a base line condition to ascertain differences between the two. Any differences between past and present performance are automatically statistically analyzed by a computer to ascertain the significance thereof. Obviously, such apparatus as described by the John patent requires complex sensors and highly trained testing personnel to provide the stimuli to the subject and record the results emanating from the subject's brain, establishing both the base line and the subject's response to the stimuli.

Other conventional performance testing such as apparatus (both automotive vehicle and aircraft) have been developed to test the capability of an operator or subject to perform pre-selected critical tasks in advance of assuming work positions to carry out such tasks. Simulators are typically programed so that the operator or subject performs tasks (driving/flying) which are normally performed in the day-to-day work of that individual. The generated test results are compared against proper objective responses anticipated of subjects performing in similar circumstances.

Although such simulators are generally effective, they do not compare the subject's present capabilities of performance against that same subject's previously established performance response capabilities. Furthermore, simulators, even the most simple, are relatively expensive and the use of them exclusively for testing instead of training requires a substantial amount of time.

Subjects engaged in high stress, repetitive work, such as airline pilots making repeated take-offs and landings, chemical plant operators processing toxic materials, nuclear power plant technicians maintaining and cleaning power plant facilities, and surgeons performing countless operations in a limited time period would benefit from immediate feedback on their current performance level. Their employers would not only increase production efficiency but would also increase the level of on the job safety for their employees and the public at large.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a system for interactively evaluating the capabilities of a subject for performing a task at a remote test site where the subject uses a computer to take a performance evaluation test. The subject's current level of performance produces data from the current test which is sent to an offtesting node site for comparison with the subject's previous level of performance on the same tests. Besides data storage capability the node site may have an on site human evaluator to review, analyze and compare the subject's current level of performance with the subject's previous level of performance.

A hub site connected to the node site serves as the central data storage and evaluation facility for the subject's current level of performance. In the event of an overall system outage the node site redundantly replaces the hub site.

This invention produces a performance evaluation system that is implemented in a controlled consistent manner using existing technology having reliable characteristics. More particularly, the invention provides a redundant system for interactively evaluating the performance capabilities of known subjects by measuring their response to a series of randomly generated tests and then comparing the test results using an algorithm which statistically passes individuals relative to their predetermined performance level. Multiple failures of the randomly generated tests raise the presumption that the subject's performance is impaired at the time the test is performed. Trained evaluators make the final determination of the subject's fitness to work.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

A complete understanding of the present invention and the above advantages may be gained from a consideration of the following description of the preferred embodiments taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of the redundant system for interactively evaluating a subject's current performance level;

FIG. 2 is a schematic representation of one test site in the system for interactively evaluating a subject's current performance level;

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of the performance evaluation method as implemented by the system;

FIG. 4 is a schematic representation of the data base for one subject evaluated by the system; and

FIG. 5 is a schematic representation of the personal computer monitor screen presenting the spatial and visual attention tests used by the performance evaluation method as presented by the system.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention, a redundant system for evaluating the performance capabilities of subjects by interactive testing, compares the subjects' current performance test results with stored data representing the subjects' previous performance results. The subjects interactively respond to a multi-function performance test presented to them on a personal computer. The subject's test results are sent through telecommunications lines to offsite data storage and evaluation facilities. A determination of the subject's performance capability is made by comparison of the current test results to that subject's stored historical test results. A decision is made at the offtest site based on this comparison as to whether that subject can perform his assigned duties effectively.

FIG. 1 is a schematic representation of the redundant system for interactively evaluating a subject's current performance level. The system 10 is redundant because evaluation and data storage occurs at potentially two levels. Individual test sites 16 contain multiple test stations located at the physical site location of the subjects under evaluation.

These test sites include, but are not limited to trailer test sites 16 parked at the site, or a ship test site 16' or an aircraft test site 16". Node sites 14 are central data collection facilities which are electronically connected to the multiple test sites 16. Node sites 14 are grouped together based on, for example, geographic considerations and may as in this example receive data from two sites 16 in the same area. The node sites 14' in an alternative embodiment are designated according to the operating company or division of a larger entity like a corporation. Node sites 14 include a computer, node data bases, data base management and performance evaluating personnel capable of maintaining the data of the node data base. If evaluating personnel such as Medical Review Officers (MRO) are not on staff at the test sites 16 then such evaluators at the node site evaluate the personnel subject's current test results compared to their base line. Communications between the individual test sites and the node sites are relatively inexpensive and would be comprised of a modem or microwave transmission.

A second level of review in the system is the system hub 12 which interconnects various node sites as well as individual test sites. The hub 12 comprises a computer and communications capabilities as well as central data base management and additional evaluating personnel. Failure of the system 10 due to a power outage in such a redundant system will not negatively impact the interconnection between the node sites 14 and test sites 16.

FIG. 2 is a schematic representation of one test site exemplary in the system 10 for interactively evaluating a subject's current performance level. The test site 16 includes at least one test station 21 which is networked into a test station area 18. Each test station contains monitor 22 with view screen 24 and keyboard or any other data input device 23. Subject 17 seated before monitor 22 is presented with tests 52 which appear on the view screen 24. In response to the tests 52, subject 17 depresses keys on the keyboard 23. Performance data generated by subject 17 responses on the keyboard 23 is transmitted over cable 27 and networked through the LAN 20 to a private consultation room 26.

In FIG. 2, twelve test stations 21 are available to simultaneously assess the performance capabilities of twelve subjects 17, however, as many as fifteen test stations are feasible. The subjects 17 log-on the test stations 21 and perform the test. The test results are then compared to their prior stored performance data or base line which may be retrieved from the node sites. Each subject's responses to the test stimuli are sent to node sites through inexpensive communications levels such as modem 32 and telephone line 34 via test station output lines 50.

Security is critical in the evaluation of the subject's 17 performance. The private consultation room 26 contains a video transceiver 38 that incorporates a general surveillance camera 42 trained upon the subjects. In addition, a physical security system 44 with alarm 46 connected to doors, electrical, telephone and fire 48 and a private interview camera 36 are also connected to the transceiver 38. The video transceiver 38 is connected to the node site (not shown here) relaying security sensitive information through telephone line 34'. In the event of a subject's failure of several test 52 sequences an additional test station 30 or a breath analyzer 28 may be used in the private consultation room 26 to secure physical evidence of the subject's 17 condition. This security system 44 is not critical for the interactive test system, but incorporates an alternative approach to employee assessment.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of a performance evaluation method 54 as used by the system 10. This method would be best implemented by software programming. The subject 17 (not shown here) first logs in (step 56) and establishes through his user identification number (step 58) his identity that is verified (step 60) by the node site to assure that he exists within the system 10. The system determines if the subject 17 has used the system 54 within the past twenty-three hours (step 62). The node site secures the subject s information data (step 64) stored at the hub or at the node site. The subject 17 (step 66) takes the test 54 and his performance results are calculated (step 68) and transmitted to the data base administration (step 70) where the current test performance results are compared to the subject's 17 historical data base (step 72). If the subject fails, the test is retaken a second time. If the subject 17 passes the test the second time (step 74) he is notified of the pass (step 78) and the passing results are communicated to security and the audit sections of the node site. The subject's supervisor is notified of the passing results (step 84) and the subject's 17 baseline is recalculated, by including the current test results. The subject's baseline is updated (step 88) and the performance evaluation method 54 is complete (step 90).

In FIG. 3 if the subject fails the test (step 66) a second time the subject 17 is notified of the failure (step 80). The subject 17 may be interviewed (step 92) in the private consultation room 26 (not shown here).

As a result of the second failure, the subject's database is updated (step 94) by the node site or hub site medical review officer (MRO). The MRO at the node site or hub, as well as the data base administrator (DBA) are notified of the two failures (step 96). MRO secures the subject's data (step 98) and interviews the subject (step 100). The MRO at the node site or the hub has the option to override the subject's repeated failure of the tests. As shown, (step 102) the MRO can reinstate the subject to their performance task after analysis of the data generated. If the MRO does not override the subject's failure of the tests then the subject is temporarily assigned to a non-safety sensitive job or sent home (step 104). If the MRO does override the test results the failure data is sent to the data base (step 106) and a message is sent to the supervisor (step 108) and the subject is sent to his appointed task step (110).

FIG. 4 is a schematic representation of the data base for one subject evaluated by the system 10. Daily test data 112, 114 and 116 taken over a period of three days produces the subject's original test data base 72. This updated base line 88 is combined with the subject's personal information 64. The subject's test data base line is added to with each days results and such results are accumulated until a predetermined number of test results is included. Thereafter only the immediate past test results for a predetermined number of tests is retained, for example, the last twenty. Therefore, the subject's test data base is continuously updated. The subject's personal information is not maintained at the test site for security reasons and to prevent tampering with the subject's data base.

FIG. 5 is a schematic representation of the monitor screen 24 presenting the spatial, visual and attention tests used by the performance evaluation method 54. The test 52 presented to the subject 17 (not shown here) can be the type as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/465,271 entitled, "Apparatus and Method Determining the Ability of an Individual to Perform a Task". The test 52 described in the application and shown by example in FIG. 5 performs three distinct testing operations. First, a visual test 118 requires the test subject 17 to evaluate a manikin 124 holding objects 126, 126' in a manikin's hands as compared with an object 130 in box 128. An attention test 120 is also incorporated in screen 24. This task is very important because it demonstrates primarily the subject's inability to appreciate whether an arrow 120 is pointing to the visual test 118 or a verbal test 122.

The verbal test 122, shown in FIG. 5 presents two letters 132, 134 to the subject where the subject 17 must assess if letters 132, 134 are the same or different. The keyboard of the interactive computer is so designated to facilitate the subject's response by depressing the preselected keys. The arrow of the attention test 120 randomly switches between the verbal 122 and the visual 118 tests thereby preventing the subject from memorizing sequences of operations and depressing a memorized sequence of keys.

While particular embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that changes and modifications can be made without departing from the invention in its broader aspects and therefore the appended claims are intended to cover all such changes and modifications as followed in the true spirit and scope of the invention.

Patent Citations
Cited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US4012848 *19 Feb 197622 Mar 1977Elza Samuilovna DiamentAudio-visual teaching machine for speedy training and an instruction center on the basis thereof
US4712180 *10 Sep 19848 Dec 1987Sillony Company LimitedEditing system of educational program for a computer assisted instruction system
US4764120 *27 May 198616 Aug 1988Mcdonald's CorporationStudent response system
US4894777 *28 Jul 198716 Jan 1990Canon Kabushiki KaishaOperator mental condition detector
US4949248 *15 Jul 198814 Aug 1990Caro Marshall ASystem for shared remote access of multiple application programs executing in one or more computers
US4958284 *6 Dec 198818 Sep 1990Npd Group, Inc.Open ended question analysis system and method
US4992940 *13 Mar 198912 Feb 1991H-Renee, IncorporatedSystem and method for automated selection of equipment for purchase through input of user desired specifications
US5058008 *3 Oct 198915 Oct 1991Pitney Bowes Inc.Mail system with personalized training for users
US5059127 *26 Oct 198922 Oct 1991Educational Testing ServiceComputerized mastery testing system, a computer administered variable length sequential testing system for making pass/fail decisions
Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US5267865 *11 Feb 19927 Dec 1993John R. LeeInteractive computer aided natural learning method and apparatus
US5276768 *20 Mar 19914 Jan 1994Tidewater Consultants, Inc.Method for computing shortest paths
US5297059 *12 Nov 199222 Mar 1994Fujitsu LimitedTesting device control system for detecting testing device failure
US5306154 *5 Mar 199226 Apr 1994Hitachi, Ltd.Intelligent education and simulation system and method
US5513994 *3 Apr 19957 May 1996Educational Testing ServiceCentralized system and method for administering computer based tests
US5565316 *22 Jun 199315 Oct 1996Educational Testing ServiceSystem and method for computer based testing
US5748617 *1 May 19965 May 1998Mci CorporationMethod and apparatus for emulating a digital cross-connect switch network
US5788508 *7 Jun 19954 Aug 1998John R. LeeEducational method
US5809286 *1 May 199615 Sep 1998Mci Communications CorporationMethod and apparatus for emulating a dynamically configured digital cross-connect switch network
US5812826 *27 Jun 199622 Sep 1998Mci Communications CorporationMethod and apparatus for emulating a network of state monitoring devices
US5827070 *7 Jun 199527 Oct 1998Educational Testing ServiceSystem and methods for computer based testing
US5850536 *1 May 199615 Dec 1998Mci Communications CorporationMethod and system for simulated multi-tasking
US5854930 *30 Dec 199629 Dec 1998Mci Communications CorporationsSystem, method, and computer program product for script processing
US5867689 *1 May 19962 Feb 1999Mci Communications CorporationMethod and apparatus for emulating a digital cross-connect switch network using a flexible topology to test MCS network management
US5915973 *11 Mar 199729 Jun 1999Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc.System for administration of remotely-proctored, secure examinations and methods therefor
US5954829 *30 Dec 199621 Sep 1999Mci Communications CorporationSystem, method, and computer program product for digital cross connect testing
US5970226 *26 Jan 199519 Oct 1999The Dow Chemical CompanyMethod of non-intrusive testing for a process control interface system having triply redundant remote field units
US5974532 *9 Dec 199726 Oct 1999Mci Communications CorporationSystem and method for generating responses for inputs using a hybrid state engine table
US5987302 *20 Mar 199816 Nov 1999Educational Testing ServiceOn-line essay evaluation system
US5991595 *20 Mar 199823 Nov 1999Educational Testing ServiceComputerized system for scoring constructed responses and methods for training, monitoring, and evaluating human rater's scoring of constructed responses
US6064856 *23 Mar 199816 May 2000Lee; John R.Master workstation which communicates with a plurality of slave workstations in an educational system
US6112049 *21 Oct 199729 Aug 2000The Riverside Publishing CompanyComputer network based testing system
US6113538 *1 Apr 19985 Sep 2000Bowles-Langley Technology, Inc.Alertness tester
US623804912 Nov 199929 May 2001Joanne Sawhill GriffinInteractive self-diagnostic system
US62566599 Dec 19973 Jul 2001Mci Communications CorporationSystem and method for performing hybrid preemptive and cooperative multi-tasking in a computer system
US641829822 Jun 20009 Jul 2002The Riverside Publishing Co.Computer network based testing system
US6513042 *11 Feb 199928 Jan 2003Test.ComInternet test-making method
US6514085 *30 Jul 19994 Feb 2003Element K Online LlcMethods and apparatus for computer based training relating to devices
US668109810 Jan 200120 Jan 2004Performance Assessment Network, Inc.Test administration system using the internet
US699636714 Jan 20047 Feb 2006Performance Assment NetworkTest administration system using the internet
US699971430 Nov 200414 Feb 2006Performance Assessment NetworkTest administration system using the internet
US70134679 Dec 199714 Mar 2006Mci Communications CorporationSystem and method for managing computer system resources using command control vectors
US70800572 Aug 200118 Jul 2006Unicru, Inc.Electronic employee selection systems and methods
US731062624 Jan 200518 Dec 2007Kronos Talent Management Inc.Electronic employee selection systems and methods
US732185830 Nov 200122 Jan 2008United Negro College Fund, Inc.Selection of individuals from a pool of candidates in a competition system
US75241912 Sep 200328 Apr 2009Rosetta Stone Ltd.System and method for language instruction
US75587672 Aug 20017 Jul 2009Kronos Talent Management Inc.Development of electronic employee selection systems and methods
US756205911 Aug 200414 Jul 2009Kronos Talent Management Inc.Development of electronic employee selection systems and methods
US760677812 Jun 200120 Oct 2009Previsor, Inc.Electronic predication system for assessing a suitability of job applicants for an employer
US779268530 Jul 20077 Sep 2010United Negro College Fund, Inc.Selection of individuals from a pool of candidates in a competition system
US80462518 Oct 200425 Oct 2011Kronos Talent Management Inc.Electronic employee selection systems and methods
US808655811 Aug 200927 Dec 2011Previsor, Inc.Computer-implemented system for human resources management
US812185130 Jul 200721 Feb 2012United Negro College Fund, Inc.Selection of individuals from a pool of candidates in a competition system
US821385628 Jul 20083 Jul 2012Vantage Technologies Knowledge Assessment, L.L.C.Unified web-based system for the delivery, scoring, and reporting of on-line and paper-based assessments
US826597717 Feb 201111 Sep 2012Kronos Talent Management Inc.Electronic employee selection systems and methods
US856033316 Feb 201215 Oct 2013United Negro College Fund, Inc.Selection of individuals from a pool of candidates in a competition system
US860788814 Feb 200817 Dec 2013Michael Jay NusbaumSelf-contained automatic fire extinguisher
US86084776 Apr 200617 Dec 2013Vantage Technologies Knowledge Assessment, L.L.C.Selective writing assessment with tutoring
US20130086557 *21 Jun 20104 Apr 2013Arul Murugan AlwarSystem for testing and certifying a virtual appliance on a customer computer system
EP0664041A1 *12 Oct 199326 Jul 1995Educational Testing ServiceSystem and method for computer based testing
EP1018717A2 *10 Mar 199812 Jul 2000Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc.Method and system for administrating of remotely-proctored secure examination
WO1995010095A2 *28 Sep 199413 Apr 1995Educational Testing ServiceA centralized system and method for administering computer based tests
WO1998040862A1 *10 Mar 199817 Sep 1998Sylvan Learning SystemsMethod and system for administrating of remotely-proctored secure examination
Classifications
U.S. Classification700/90, 600/558, 434/323
International ClassificationG06F19/00, G09B7/04
Cooperative ClassificationG09B7/04, G06F19/322, G06F19/363, G06F19/3418
European ClassificationG06F19/36A, G06F19/34C, G09B7/04
Legal Events
DateCodeEventDescription
18 Feb 1997FPExpired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 19961211
8 Dec 1996LAPSLapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
16 Jul 1996REMIMaintenance fee reminder mailed
31 Aug 1992ASAssignment
Owner name: PACT CORPORATION, THE, CALIFORNIA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNOR:ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, A CORP. OF DE;REEL/FRAME:006196/0406
Effective date: 19920811
11 Mar 1991ASAssignment
Owner name: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 515 SOUTH FLOWER ST.,
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNORS:GREENBERG, HOWARD L.;RODRIGUEZ, ENSOR;REEL/FRAME:005659/0110
Effective date: 19910304